GRIDRA

Lab

Flux Concentrator Core Geometry Lab

How much of a toroidal core you actually need, and what you give up by removing part of it — an illustrative exploration of the four sensor-core shapes studied in a real published paper, not a design tool.

Why this matters for PD monitoring

A conventional closed HFCT provides high sensitivity, but the 50 Hz operating current of an MV cable can drive it toward magnetic saturation — leaving little dynamic range left over for the much smaller, high-frequency partial-discharge pulses it's actually there to detect. Opening the magnetic path increases reluctance and reduces how much 50 Hz flux the core has to carry, buying back dynamic range for PD pulses — at the direct cost of the sensitivity the slider shows falling on the other side of that trade.

Core geometry

100.0%
Drag the slider or pick a shape Drag the view to rotate, scroll to zoom

Estimated saturation current

40.0 A

1.0× the closed ring's own 40.0 A

First-order estimate — series reluctance model (valid for a closed ring or small gap).

Below ~200A, this shape would likely saturate within typical medium-voltage operating currents (200–500A, per the source paper) — exactly the failure mode a flux concentrator is meant to push higher.

Core covers

100.0% of the loop

Core material length

251.3 mm

Open path length

0.0 mm

Effective reluctance

1,000 kA·t/Wb

What the real paper actually measured

This lab estimates only the DC saturation-current trend from reluctance — not sensor sensitivity. The numbers below are the paper's own FEM-simulated, transient sensitivity results, printed here for comparison, not computed by this tool.

Core geometrySensitivity vs. closed coreMaterial usage
HFCT (closed ring)100%100%
HFCT with small air gap84%125%
Standard flux concentrator (half-core)57% (up to 89% optimally positioned)89%
Small flux concentrator (120° sector)39% (up to 139% optimally positioned)139%

The trade-off, side by side

Putting the paper's own sensitivity measurement next to this lab's saturation-current estimate for the same four geometries — two different sources, shown separately, never averaged together. Saturation headroom is plotted on a log scale (from 1× to roughly 100×) since it grows far faster than sensitivity falls.

Closed ring

100% sens.
1.0× sat.

Ring + 1.1mm gap

84% sens.
9.7× sat.

Half-core

57% sens.
35.3× sat.

120° sector

39% sens.
64.5× sat.

Sensitivity (paper, FEM) Saturation headroom (this lab, log scale)

How this is built, and its real limit: the toroid's mean circumference is split by a single coverage fraction, and the saturation current is the primary current at which the core reaches Bsat. Two first-order pictures are compared and the one giving flux the easier path wins. For a closed ring or a small gap, a series reluctance network — core plus gap — is accurate, using the same engine as the Transformer Core & Magnetic Circuit Designer. Once most of the loop is open, that picture fails: the field no longer squeezes through a core-sized air tube but spreads through space. There the open arc is treated as a finite high-permeability rod sitting in the conductor's own field, whose ends limit how much it can concentrate that field (its demagnetizing factor, from the standard prolate-spheroid approximation). Both are hand calculations, good to perhaps a factor of two for the open shapes; the source paper used full 3D finite-element simulation for exactly this reason, so read the numbers as the right order of magnitude and trend, not a design figure.

Explore: Transformer Core & Magnetic Circuit Designer

Go back to the closed-core, load-bearing magnetic circuit model this lab's open-shape exploration builds on — turns, reluctance, inductance and saturation for a real transformer or reactor core.

Continue: PD Sensor Signal Chain Lab

Pick a core geometry here, then see what reaches the oscilloscope — HFCT transfer impedance, a published output filter, and the trade-off between 50 Hz rejection and PD pulse fidelity.

Further reading